M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

9. It is also submitted that section 36(1) of the Act which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28. Clause (va) of said section reads as under:- “(va) any sum received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

9. One aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As pointed out already, the crucial words in the section require that the assessee has to obtain in cash or in any other manner some benefit. That part of the section has been omitted

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

9 of the Appeal order) “6. I have gone through the submissions of the appellant, assessment order, grounds of appeal and material on record. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 are in connection with the addition of Rs. 1,83,16,53,000/- made by the AO under section 68

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

1) dated 21/12/2019 wherein the assessing authority had made addition in the total income of assessee on two grounds viz (i) addition under section 69A and (ii) addition under section 68. (5) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority while replying to the adjudication proceedings under section

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

9,85,596 By MUDAT Journal 48 1,83,808.00 1,02,26,208.00 1,02,26,208.00 The whole scenarios show that the fund repaid by the assessee to the above concerns was again received back in the form of unsecured loans in the name of other persons. Thus, the re-payment made to these above concerns remained unexplained

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. It was submitted that the AO after due consideration the circular issued by the CBDT and the submission of the assessee had reached the judicial decision which cannot be branded as erroneous. Further, on the similar issues, the various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals had considered the circular and allowed the claim. In light of above, the direction issued

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During the course of statements of the above persons, it was noticed

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During the course of statements of the above persons, it was noticed

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239 Para 4.2.3 at he assesee utilized the sale proceeds on of Para 8,9, & No adverse

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

68 of the IT Act and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The AO also held that the income is chargeable to tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The AO further added commission paid to operators for taking such accommodation entries

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 251(1)(a) itself provides 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 22[* * *] 30[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment33 34[* * *]; And in the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 the assessee has not filed the appeal before

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 was not applicable. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

68 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

68 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 19,00,000/- invoking provision of Section 68 on the finding that amount received as unsecured loan from Sh. Babul al Mutal Mal HUF Rs. 6,00,000/-, Sh. Hansraj Babulal